Blockbuster has said that it's seen a lot of support from game publishers over its increased game rental plans, because they help erode the impact of used games. Apparently, companies receive quite the kickback from rentals, whereas they get "nothing" from trade-ins.
"We have ramped up the rental side of our business and we have got an awful lot of support from publishers," claimed commercial director Gerry Butler. “Publishers like renting as it takes away from trade-ins. The problem with trade-ins is the publisher doesn’t get any money. The advantage of renting is that they get quite a lot of money."
Blockbuster is proud of its "cost-effective" way for players to enjoy all the hottest releases, although Butler has not said how it's handling the whole online pass thing. While publishers apparently love rentals, their little scheme to punished used gamers certainly must affect those who rent as well.
I guess, like most things, they don't really care so long as they're getting their cheddar.
Blockbuster: Publishers see rental model as deterrent to pre-owned [MCV]
Jim Sterling serves as reviews editor for Destructoid.com, head of the Podtoid podcast, and produces a number of news stories, original features, one-of-a-kind videos. With his passionate argumentative style, controversial opinions, harsh delivery, and dedication to brutal honesty Sterling is a name that you can't help but recognize.
Likes
PS2, iPod Touch, Silent Hill 2, Metal Gear Solid, Dynasty Warriors 3
Meet the rest of the team
| BBcode help |
| [b]Bold text[/b] |
Bold text |
| [i]Italic text[/i] |
Italic text |
| [url]http://www.dtoid.com/[/url] |
http://www.dtoid.com |
| [url=http://www.dtoid.com/]Web link[/url] |
Web link |
|
| [img]http://www.example.com/robot.jpg[/img] |
 |
Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
58 comments | showing # 1 to 50
|
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
Comments policy
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Contest:
10:00 AM on 11.21.2011 | 
It was awesome before online passes....
:(
Maybe I'm wrong but at least that's what I remember
Contrary to what some believe, publishers cannot bar rental outfits from renting their IP for the first 28 days, like what happens with movie companies. All they can do is not sell to rental outfits at wholesale prices for 28 days. I wonder if they have some kind of royalies agreement in place when it comes to games, though I doubt it, as there would be no real way they could enforce it. Hmmm.
As a Blockbuster employee (man I need a better job), I can shed some light here. We usually get games such that they are carbon copies of what retail stores get. So the online pass is there, the Nintendo club flyer, the legend of Zelda soundtrack, everything. When you rent it, everything stays in the box, so if you use the code first, you get it. I'm not sure if all Blockbusters do that, but every one I've worked at does.
I love Saints Row 3, but I died a little on the inside when I had to put in a code just to play co-op online. Ridiculous!!
Ahh, I misspoke a little. I just meant that people use the movie industry as an example when talking about things like this, when the "28 day wait" thing is not a ban on rental, its a refusal to sell at wholesale prices. First sale doctrine protects rentals in general, so there's no way to legally stop anyone from renting property they already own.
Which is why I suspect the huge amount of money publishers get from rental outfits comes from the huge wholesale purchases they make, as its not like they could legally force them to sign royalty agreements before theyre allowed to rent the games. If this is the case, then it is no different from the used industry at all from a publisher point of view.
Ahh, I misspoke a little. I just meant that people use the movie industry as an example when talking about things like this, when the "28 day wait" thing is not a ban on rental, its a refusal to sell at wholesale prices. First sale doctrine protects rentals in general, so there's no way to legally stop anyone from renting property they already own.
Which is why I suspect the huge amount of money publishers get from rental outfits comes from the huge wholesale purchases they make, as its not like they could legally force them to sign royalty agreements before theyre allowed to rent the games. If this is the case, then it is no different from the used industry at all from a publisher point of view.
Especially if I had a store nearby (finely is way to slow)
Also the whole pass thing would be easy let more games include a free 48 hours for MP or something
Personally I like it--they give you the first month for half-off. I've played Uncharted 3, Arkham City, Battlefield 3 to completion in single player and Assassin's Creed Revelations to 50% in addition to half a dozen brand new movies in less than a month for $8.
If there's a drawback it's that they pull or activate online pass slip codes in the packages, even on first-day rentals, prohibiting online play--but you could always buy a pass from the publisher I suppose.
It's not a matter of ownership but profit. A publisher can still make money if they take a certain cut from the rental fee and multiple that by millions of renters. No profit is made in the used game business for publishers. Sure, there's the initial purchase. But after that, there's nothing. A lot of people buy a used game and return it back used when they're done. Each time that happens, the profit a publisher makes from that single game becomes less and less. And then you have companies like Gamestop with policies that allow you to return a used game within a week of purchase. Since the game is already used, there is no way of telling that the game was played after purchase. So there are people who abuse the system by buying a used game, playing it and beating it within a week, and returning it to get their money back. Now that's a person who played a game that people worked hard on for free. Why that's actually a free rental! And I do know people who exploit this policy at Gamestop which, in my honest opinion, is where the real problem with used game are.
So good sir, I strongly beg to differ when it comes to the matter of profit between used and rentals. While I don't believe used game stores are evil, I do think that renting is more beneficial to publishers.
It's not clear that they do take a cut, or even if they can. The only thing publishers have to hold over the head of rental outfits are the wholesale prices, nothing legally binding. If publishers took a cut, or had rental outfits sign some kind of royalties agreement, it couldn't add up to more than the rental outfits save by getting wholesale prices. Otherwise, Blockbuster employees could walk over to Walmart, buy up a bunch of games at retail price, and rent those games with impunity.
In all this, its best to take anything the industry says about used games with a grain of salt. The vast majority of the things they say are completely baseless, and many of them are easily disproven with common sense and commonly available numbers. The notion that rentals make more money than used games, based on the available info, is largely unproven and completely disregards the effect used games have on the gaming community at large. The used games segment does wonders for consumer buying power and as much for consumer retention, these things don't seem to be factored into this particular equation.
"Perhaps they could offer on-line pass rentals."
This. If they're so buddy-buddy with the publishers, they should work out a deal with them where they rent SP games to you for the normal $8 (or whatever), but if you want to experience the online, you have to pay an extra $2 (or whatever).
If they're determined to fuck us, they might as well let us enjoy it a little.
/thread
you dont see car companies getting kick backs from used cars, what about books? movies? music? same deal, why should video game media be any different?
i hate the cry babyness of this industry. i am getting less and less interested in video games as this generations developers and publishers start to complain more and more about not making enough money. cry me a fuckin river.
You can't show a movie or sports event in a business without the license. It cost $75 for a license to show a movie at an event.
at this point, it isnt even worth it to preorder games anymore, much less buy them brand new and at full price. 80% of the time I have preordered a game in the past year or two, i've gotten burned with a piece of rushed, overhyped, overpriced crap that is light on content and heavy on bugs.
make your games worth the ridiculous prices you charge for them, and people wont be so willing to wait and buy them used.
And yeahm as timtheterrible said, Blockbuster also sells games used. Usually only if the rental copies are no longer in-demand, but still.
Also, given Blockbuster has been feeling the hurt of Redbox, Netflix and Hulu of late, is the video game industry supporting the dying physical rental really the smartest move?
They could, you know, add value to their games rather than piecemeal, pay-more content. Just saying that Skyward Sword, Skyrim, Dark Souls, Mario 3D Land and, hell, most of the games that I bought this year new that didn't have an online pass offered more content and felt more complete than the games that attempted to implement online passes did.
Treating consumers like shit just isn't the path to success. That should be common sense, but apparently its not.
I'm not sure what is going on at the Gamestops in your area, but the company policy is not to accept returns on games that have been opened, barring defective items. They'll allow returns in a 30 day window, but the package needs to be sealed.
If people are somehow circumventing these rules and returning opened games for full refunds after a week, you can blame the employees and management of your local gamestop, because its far from company policy.
B. Renters still get screwed with the online pass garbage that used buyers do.
A. New game price is always too high.
B. Too many games with bugs when they are released (I'll wait for them to fix them first.)
C. I'll just wait for the games to be like $30-$40 bucks, then I'll buy an online pass if I really want it.
SO FU PUBLISHERS! You caused this!
So really, if you're a publisher against the selling of used games, you also want to kill off the major factor that moves your console games. Maybe, if you want more people to buy your game, you should lower the price to what it may be actually worth. I damn well know that not every game you're selling is gonna move at $60 a pop.